Autonomic manufacturing operator authorization adjustment

ABSTRACT

Operator authorizations are autonomically adjusted in many ways to automatically account for many different variables. Operator authorization may be adjusted according to an operator&#39;s past activity record so previous experience is not lost when the operator is rehired. Operator authorization may be adjusted according to the operator&#39;s quality and performance. Operator authorization may also be adjusted by recognizing similar operations to those the operator is authorized to perform, and authorizing the operator to perform one or more similar operations. Operator authorization may also be adjusted to a lesser level or may be revoked for an operation based on the passage of time. A manufacturing system may efficiently track operators taking into account different activity periods, the passage of time, the operator&#39;s performance, and similar operations to autonomically adjust the authorization of the operators as needed.

BACKGROUND

1. Technical Field

This disclosure generally relates to manufacturing systems, and morespecifically relates to authorization of workers to perform operationsin manufacturing systems.

2. Background Art

Many modern manufacturing environments require operators (or workers) tobe certified to perform certain operations. This leads to a need totrack the training for operators, manage the authorization of theoperators, and track the certification of the operators. The tracking ofoperators and their training, certification and authorization iscomplicated by the use of temporary operators. Many manufacturingenvironments have a high percentage of temporary operators that may belaid off during periods of low activity and rehired when activityincreases. Known systems have no way to account for an operator's pastexperience when the operator is rehired. When an operator is rehired,the company typically assigns a new user ID to the operator, which meansthe operator's past experience is not associated with the new user ID.The result is a significant amount of lost information, workmanshipdefects, negative cycle time impacts, and serious training deficiencies.Without a way to track a operator's authorization across multipleperiods of activity and adjust the operator's authorizationautonomically, the known ways of managing operators in a manufacturingenvironment will suffer from the drawbacks mentioned above.

BRIEF SUMMARY

Operator authorizations are autonomically adjusted in many ways toautomatically account for many different variables. Operatorauthorization may be adjusted according to an operator's past activityrecord so previous experience is not lost when the operator is rehired.Operator authorization may be adjusted according to the operator'squality and performance. Operator authorization may also be adjusted byrecognizing similar operations to those the operator is authorized toperform, and authorizing the operator to perform one or more similaroperations. Operator authorization may also be adjusted to a lesserlevel or may be revoked for an operation if too much time has passedsince the operator was certified for the operation or since the operatoractually performed the operation. A manufacturing system may efficientlytrack operators taking into account different activity periods, thepassage of time, the operator's performance, and similar operations toautonomically adjust the authorization of the operators as needed.

The foregoing and other features and advantages will be apparent fromthe following more particular description, as illustrated in theaccompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)

The disclosure will be described in conjunction with the appendeddrawings, where like designations denote like elements, and:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an apparatus that autonomically adjustsoperator authorizations in a manufacturing environment;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram of the autonomic operator authorizationadjustment mechanism shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a method for autonomically adjustingoperator authorization;

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram showing one suitable implementation of step 320in FIG. 3;

FIG. 5 is a block diagram of sample time limits shown in FIG. 2 that maybe used to autonomically adjust operator authorization according to thepassage of time;

FIG. 6 is a block diagram of a sample operator trace table shown in FIG.2;

FIG. 7 is a sample timeline showing gaps in activity for a sampleoperator;

FIG. 8 is a flow diagram showing determination of an unbiasedauthorization shown in FIG. 2 according to the operator's activity for aselected operation;

FIG. 9 is a block diagram of a table that shows a sample unbiasedauthorization shown in FIG. 2 for a selected operator;

FIG. 10 is a block diagram of a table that shows sample performanceoverrides shown in FIG. 2;

FIG. 11 is a flow diagram of a method for autonomically addingauthorization for an operator to perform similar operations;

FIG. 12 is a block diagram of a table showing criteria for autonomicallyadding authorization for an operator to perform a similar operation;

FIG. 13 is a block diagram of a table showing Boolean similar operationrules that govern the autonomic addition of authorization for anoperator to perform a similar operation;

FIG. 14 is a sample table for resolving potential conflicts inrecommended adjustments to an operator's authorization;

FIG. 15 is a sample table of one specific implementation of the timephased operator performance 230 in FIG. 2;

FIG. 16 is a sample table of one specific implementation of the operatorquality 220 in FIG. 2; and

FIG. 17 is a flow diagram of one specific implementation of a method forassigning an unbiased authorization according to method 800 in FIG. 8.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The claims and disclosure herein provide a way to autonomically adjustoperator authorization in a manufacturing environment to account for thepassage of time, for periods of past activity, for the operator'scurrent performance and quality, and to provide authorization forsimilar operations. The autonomic adjustment of operator authorizationis performed according to rules that may be defined by a systemadministrator and that may be updated or changed from time to time,thereby providing a manufacturing system that is very powerful andflexible in managing authorizations for operators.

Referring to FIG. 1, a computer system 100 is one suitableimplementation of a computer system that autonomically adjusts operatorauthorizations in a manufacturing environment. Computer system 100 is anIBM eServer System i computer system. However, those skilled in the artwill appreciate that the disclosure herein applies equally to anycomputer system, regardless of whether the computer system is acomplicated multi-user computing apparatus, a single user workstation,or an embedded control system. As shown in FIG. 1, computer system 100comprises one or more processors 110, a main memory 120, a mass storageinterface 130, a display interface 140, and a network interface 150.These system components are interconnected through the use of a systembus 160. Mass storage interface 130 is used to connect mass storagedevices, such as a direct access storage device 155, to computer system100. One specific type of direct access storage device 155 is a readableand writable CD-RW drive, which may store data to and read data from aCD-RW 195.

Main memory 120 preferably contains data 121, an operating system 122,an autonomic operator authorization adjustment mechanism 123, anoperator authorization 124, and an adjusted operator authorization 125.Data 121 represents any data that serves as input to or output from anyprogram in computer system 100. Operating system 122 is preferably amultitasking operating system. Autonomic operator authorizationadjustment mechanism 123 autonomically adjusts an operator authorization124 to produce an adjusted operator authorization 125. The autonomicoperator authorization adjustment mechanism 123 may adjust the operatorauthorization according to many criteria, including past activityperiods, the passage of time, current performance, and similaroperations. Each of these is discussed in more detail below.

Computer system 100 utilizes well known virtual addressing mechanismsthat allow the programs of computer system 100 to behave as if they onlyhave access to a large, single storage entity instead of access tomultiple, smaller storage entities such as main memory 120 and DASDdevice 155. Therefore, while data 121, operating system 122, autonomicoperator authorization adjustment mechanism 123, operator authorization124, and adjusted operator authorization 125 are shown to reside in mainmemory 120, those skilled in the art will recognize that these items arenot necessarily all completely contained in main memory 120 at the sametime. It should also be noted that the term “memory” is used hereingenerically to refer to the entire virtual memory of computer system100, and may include the virtual memory of other computer systemscoupled to computer system 100.

Processor 110 may be constructed from one or more microprocessors and/orintegrated circuits. Processor 110 executes program instructions storedin main memory 120. Main memory 120 stores programs and data thatprocessor 110 may access. When computer system 100 starts up, processor110 initially executes the program instructions that make up operatingsystem 122.

Although computer system 100 is shown to contain only a single processorand a single system bus, those skilled in the art will appreciate thatautonomic adjustment of operator authorizations may be practiced using acomputer system that has multiple processors and/or multiple buses. Inaddition, the interfaces that are used preferably each include separate,fully programmed microprocessors that are used to off-loadcompute-intensive processing from processor 110. However, those skilledin the art will appreciate that these functions may be performed usingI/O adapters as well.

Display interface 140 is used to directly connect one or more displays165 to computer system 100. These displays 165, which may benon-intelligent (i.e., dumb) terminals or fully programmableworkstations, are used to provide system administrators and users theability to communicate with computer system 100. Note, however, thatwhile display interface 140 is provided to support communication withone or more displays 165, computer system 100 does not necessarilyrequire a display 165, because all needed interaction with users andother processes may occur via network interface 150.

Network interface 150 is used to connect computer system 100 to othercomputer systems or workstations 175 via network 170. Network interface150 broadly represents any suitable way to interconnect electronicdevices, regardless of whether the network 170 comprises present-dayanalog and/or digital techniques or via some networking mechanism of thefuture. Network interface 150 preferably includes a combination ofhardware and software that allow communicating on the network 170.Software in the network interface 150 preferably includes acommunication manager that manages communication with other computersystems 175 via network 170 using a suitable network protocol. Manydifferent network protocols can be used to implement a network. Theseprotocols are specialized computer programs that allow computers tocommunicate across a network. TCP/IP (Transmission ControlProtocol/Internet Protocol) is an example of a suitable network protocolthat may be used by the communication manager within the networkinterface 150.

As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the presentinvention may be embodied as a system, method or computer programproduct. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the formof an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment(including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or anembodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may allgenerally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.”Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of acomputer program product embodied in one or more computer readablemedium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.

Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s) may beutilized. The computer readable medium may be a computer readable signalmedium or a computer readable non-transitory storage medium. A computerreadable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, anelectronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, orsemiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combinationof the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of thecomputer readable storage medium would include the following: anelectrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computerdiskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory(ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flashmemory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory(CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or anysuitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document,a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that cancontain, or store a program for use by or in connection with aninstruction execution system, apparatus, or device.

A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated data signalwith computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, inbaseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may takeany of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to,electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. Acomputer readable signal medium may be any computer readable medium thatis not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate,propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with aninstruction execution system, apparatus, or device.

Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmittedusing any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless,wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination ofthe foregoing.

Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of thepresent invention may be written in any combination of one or moreprogramming languages, including an object oriented programming languagesuch as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional proceduralprogramming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similarprogramming languages. The program code may execute entirely on theuser's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alonesoftware package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remotecomputer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latterscenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computerthrough any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or awide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an externalcomputer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet ServiceProvider).

Aspects of the present invention are described herein with reference toflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus(systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of theinvention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchartillustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in theflowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented bycomputer program instructions. These computer program instructions maybe provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, specialpurpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus toproduce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via theprocessor of the computer or other programmable data processingapparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified inthe flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.

These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computerreadable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable dataprocessing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particularmanner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readablemedium produce an article of manufacture including instructions whichimplement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks.

The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer,other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to causea series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, otherprogrammable apparatus or other devices to produce a computerimplemented process such that the instructions which execute on thecomputer or other programmable apparatus provide processes forimplementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or blockdiagram block or blocks.

Referring to FIG. 2, a suitable implementation for the autonomicoperator authorization adjustment mechanism 123 in FIG. 1 is shown. Anauthorization adjustment mechanism 290 receives information from manysources, and generates an adjusted operator authorization 125 based onan operator authorization 124 and based on other information receivedfrom other sources. An operator history 210 preferably includes workhistory for one or more operators. This work history may includeoperator quality 220 and time phased operator performance 230. Anoperator trace table 244 preferably indicates a work history for one ormore operators, where the work history may include various differentactivity periods separated by periods of inactivity. Operator tracetable 244 is generated according to time limits 240. The time limits 240specify one or more time thresholds that determine when an operator'spast work experience may be considered and when authorization should beadjusted. For example, if an operator was certified to perform anoperation more than a year ago but has had little experience since then,the time limits 240 may specify the amount of work experience that willbe used by subsequent processes 250, 260 and 270 (e.g., the past 12months of quality performance across two discontinuous periods ofactivity). The time limits 240 allow for specifying time thresholds thatdetermine how much of an operator's past work experience, potentiallyspanning multiple different periods with different user IDs, will betaken into account when determining if an adjustment to an operator'sauthorization is needed.

An unbiased authorization 250 is generated from the operator quality 220and the time phased operator performance 230. The unbiased authorization250 reflects data relating to the operator's on-the-job performance thatis not modified (or biased). In one specific implementation, theunbiased authorization 250 produces one or more operator authorizationsthat are derived solely from the operator's performance, withoutconsideration of current operator authorization 124. Note the unbiasedauthorization 250 may take into account time limits 240 so thatperformance beyond a specified time threshold is not considered ingenerating the unbiased authorization 250, while performance within thespecified threshold is used in generating the unbiased authorization250, even when the specified threshold defines multiple periods ofactivity for an operator using multiple user IDs. Performance overrides270 include one or more rules for adjusting an operator's authorizationwhen specified criteria are met. The performance overrides 270 mayconsider an authorization 252 that is manually input, the unbiasedauthorization 250, and the current operator authorization 124. In onesuitable implementation, three distinct operator authorizations may bespecified in the manual authorization input 252, the unbiasedauthorization 250, and the operator authorization 124. The rules in theperformance overrides 270 determine which of the operator authorizationswill be used by the authorization adjustment mechanism 290 to generatethe adjusted operator authorization 125.

The authorization adjustment mechanism 290 receives input from manysources, such as those shown in FIG. 2, and generates from an operatorauthorization 124 and from other information an adjusted operatorauthorization 125. One of the sources of input is similar operationmodels 260. The similar operation models 260 allow autonomicallycreating or adjusting operator authorization according to operationsthat are defined as similar operations in the similar operation models.The similar operation models 260 preferably define operations that aresimilar to each other, and define rules for generating or adjustingoperator authorizations for similar operations. The similar operationmodels 260 are discussed in more detail below with reference to FIGS.11-13.

The authorization adjustment mechanism 290 may also output historicalchanges 232. The historical changes 232 allow tracking of authorizationsover time so the manufacturing processes may be appropriately auditedand controlled.

Referring to FIG. 3, a method 300 is preferably performed by theautonomic operator authorization adjustment mechanism 123 shown in FIGS.1 and 2. Method 300 begins by selecting an operator (step 310). The workhistory for the selected operator is determined (step 320). The workhistory determined in step 320 may include, for example, the operatorquality 220 and time phased operator performance 230 shown in FIG. 2.Next, an unbiased authorization for the operator is determined (step330), as represented at 250 in FIG. 2, according to the time limits 240.The unbiased authorization may be manually adjusted as required (step340). A simple example will illustrate why manually adjusting theunbiased authorization in step 340 may be required. Let's assume theunbiased authorization indicates an operator is authorized to do aspecific test. However, if the equipment is new and complicated, thesystem administrator may want to limit this test to people on the firstshift until the equipment has a sufficient track record of success. Inthis specific example, the authorization for the test could be manuallyadjusted to require Expert authorization for operators on the second andthird shifts. Note the manual adjustment in step 340 is optional, andmay not be performed in many instances. The recommended adjustment tothe operator authorization is then determined according to the rulesspecified in the performance overrides (step 350). Similar operationmodels 260 are evaluated and an adjustment to the operator authorizationfor similar operations is determined (step 360). If there are anypotential conflicts between the recommended adjustment from the unbiasedperformance determined in step 350 and the recommended adjustment forsimilar operations determined in step 360, these potential conflicts areresolved to produce a final adjustment (step 370). The final adjustmentis then used to autonomically generate an adjusted operatorauthorization (step 380). If there are more operators to evaluate (step390=YES), method 300 loops back to step 310 and continues until thereare no more operators to evaluate (step 390=NO).

Referring to FIG. 4, a method 320 represents one suitable implementationfor step 320 in FIG. 3. First, time limits are determined (step 410).Time limits 240 are preferably specified by a system administrator, andinclude one or more time thresholds that specify time periods that maybe taken into account when evaluating potential adjustments to anoperator's authorization. The operator trace table may then be adjustedaccording to the time limits (step 420) to only take into account therelevant experience of the operator according to the time limits. Notethe operator trace table, even after applying the time limits, mayinclude multiple periods of activity under multiple user IDs. Theoperator's trace table adjusted by the time limits may then be used ingenerating the unbiased authorization in step 330 and in evaluating thesimilar operation models in step 360.

One suitable example of time limits 240 in FIG. 2 is shown in FIG. 5.For this specific example, the time limits 240 specify a CURRENT USERTYPE column, a VALID PAST USER TYPES column, and a TIME FENCE column.Each entry in the time limits 240 provides information regarding a timefence (or threshold) that is applied to previous work experience orcertifications of an operator. Entry 510 specifies if an operator is avendor, experience for the past 12 months as a vendor may be taken intoaccount. This means experience of an operator that is a vendor beyond 12months is ignored, and all history over the past 12 months is taken intoaccount, even when that history spans multiple periods of activity undermultiple user IDs. Entry 520 specifies if an operator is an IBMemployee, all experience as an IBM employee will be taken into account.Entry 530 specifies for all user types, experience for the past 18months as an IBM employee will be taken into account, and no non-IBMexperience will be taken into account. Time limits 240 allow a systemadministrator to specify time thresholds that allow an operator's pastexperience to be considered, but only back to the time specified in thethresholds. Note the time limits may apply to the operator trace table244 as well as the unbiased authorization 250, and may operate to cutoff some periods of past experience while preserving other periods ofpast experience. The time limits thus allow customizing the adjustmentof operator authorization according to specified time thresholds so anoperator's past experience may be taken into account (or not) based onthe time thresholds.

Referring to FIG. 6, one suitable example of the operator trace table244 in FIG. 2 is shown. The operator trace table 244 in FIG. 6 specifiesa column for user ID/Alias, a column for Current UserID, a column forDate Activated, and a column for Past UserIDs.

Entry 610 shows that an operator ZEE BOB with a userID of ZBOB wasactivated Jun. 26, 1989, and has no past userIDs. Entry 620 shows anoperator JANE DOE with a userID of VEND008 was activated Dec. 1, 2007,and has past userIDs of VEND003 and VEND993. Entry 630 shows an operatorJAMES JOHN with a userID of VEND8888 was activated on Jun. 1, 2007, andhas a past userID of JJOHN.

The combination of the time limits 240 in FIG. 5 and the operator tracetable 244 in FIG. 6 allows taking an operator's past experience intoaccount, but only for the time specified by the time thresholds in thetime limits. We assume for this example that JANE DOE's history hasgaps, as shown in the timeline in FIG. 7. These gaps represent periodsof inactivity, when JANE DOE did not perform operations. In knownsystems for tracking employees, when Jane is re-hired the third time asVEND008,there would be no information available regarding Jane's pastuser IDs or authorizations, because her current user ID of VEND008 hasno information relating to past activity. The operator trace table 244provides information regarding past user IDS for Jane Doe, which allowsher past experience to be considered according to the time limits. Weassume the time threshold in the time limits in entry 510 in FIG. 5applies, so only Jane Doe's experience in the past 12 months will beconsidered (see entry 510 in FIG. 5). For the specific example shown inFIG. 7, we assume the 12 months occurs during the gap between Jane Doe'sactivity as VEND993 and VEND003, as shown by the 12 month period in FIG.7. As a result, Jane Doe's experience as user ID VEND003 will be takeninto account, but her experience as VEND993 will not be taken intoaccount due to the time limits in FIG. 5. By considering Jane's pastexperience according to time limits 240, Jane's authorization may beautonomically adjusted to reflect past experience and certificationsthat are within the time limits.

While the specific example in FIGS. 6 and 7 show gaps in JANE DOE'sactivity, this is given by way of example to show one or more periodswhen JANE DOE was not authorized to perform operations. Note this is notnecessarily caused by unemployment. For example, JANE DOE could havebeen reassigned to a different area where she was not authorized toperform operations. The disclosure and claims herein extend to anysuitable periods of activity interspersed with any suitable periods ofinactivity, whether by unemployment, reassignment, or other reasons.

FIG. 8 shows a sample method 800 for determining an unbiasedauthorization (e.g., 250 in FIG. 2) for a selected operator. First, anoperation is selected (step 810). The operation selected in step 810 isan operation the operator has performed in the past. The operatoractivity for the selected operation is then determined from the selectedoperator's work history (step 820). Criteria is defined that, ifsatisfied, allows the unbiased authorization to be determined based onoperator quality. In other words, the unbiased authorization is“unbiased” because it only takes into account the operator's actualperformance in performing an operation in the past. If the operatoractivity does not satisfy the defined criteria (step 830=NO), theunbiased authorization is set to the lowest authorization level (step840). In some implementations, the lowest authorization level in step840 may be the lowest authorization that allows the operator to performthe operation, while the lowest authorization level in step 840 in otherimplementations may have a “not authorized” authorization level or a“null” authorization level, indicating the unbiased authorization wasnot based on the operator's activity in performing the selectedoperation. If the operator activity satisfies the criteria for havingthe operator's performance determine the unbiased authorization (step830=YES), the operator quality for the select operation is determined(step 850). The unbiased authorization is then set based on the operatorquality (step 860). For example, let's assume there are four differentauthorization levels defined: trainer, beginner, intermediate, andexpert. The unbiased authorization will be set to one of these fourlevels in step 860 depending on quality criteria that determines thequality of the operator's past work in performing the selectedoperation. Of course, method 800 supports any suitable number or type ofauthorization levels. If there are more operations to evaluate (step870=YES), method 800 loops back to step 810 and continues until thereare no more operations to evaluate (step 870=N0). Note the authorizationlevel for the selected operator to perform a selected operation is basedsolely on the work history for the operator, and does not take intoaccount the operator's current authorization for that operation. In thismanner, the operator's current authorization for the operation can becompared to the unbiased authorization to determine according to therules in the performance overrides if an adjustment to the operator'sauthorization is needed. A specific implementation for method 800 inFIG. 8 is shown in FIG. 17 and is discussed in detail below.

A table 250 in FIG. 9 is one suitable implementation for an unbiasedauthorization 250 shown in FIG. 2 for a selected operator. The tableincludes a column for Product, a column for Operation, columns for theActivity Count and Period, a column for the Defect Rate, and theresulting Unbiased Authorization for the operation. We assume the method800 in FIG. 8 is applied to the data in each entry in table 250 todetermine the unbiased authorization for each operation. Thus, the datain entry 910 results in an unbiased authorization of Expert. In similarfashion, the unbiased authorization for entry 920 is Intermediate; forentry 930 is Beginner; for entry 940 is Trainer; for entry 950 isTrainer; and for entry 960 is Trainer. The unbiased authorization iseasily determined using method 800 in FIG. 8 using the data in eachentry.

FIG. 10 shows a table 270 that is one suitable implementation for theperformance overrides 270 in FIG. 2. Performance overrides in table 270are a set of rules that determine how to adjust an operator'sauthorization to perform certain operations. Entry 1010 specifies if anoperator has been working on the 0050 operation on the 9406-570 productfor more than 15 days as a Trainer and has not certified to the nextlevel of authorization, the operator's Trainer authorization is revoked.Entry 1020 specifies if an operator has not performed the TEST operationfor the 9117-570 product for 60 or more days, then reduce theauthorization to the next lower level. Thus, assuming the fourauthorization levels shown in FIG. 8, namely Starter, Beginner,Intermediate and Expert, if the operator had an authorization of Expert,the authorization for the operator would be reduced to Intermediate.Entry 1030 specifies if an operator has not performed operation 0410 forany product for more than 120 days, then revoke the operator'sauthorization to perform the operation. Entry 1040 specifies if anoperator for operation 0050 on product 9119-595 has a defect rate ofmore than five percent in the past three months, revoke the operator'sauthorization to perform operation 0050 on product 9119-595. Entry 1050specifies if an operator with an authorization of Trainer to performoperation TEST on product 9119-595 has not been certified to a higherlevel and has a defect rate more than three percent, revoke theoperator's authorization to perform operation TEST on product 9119-595.Entry 1060 specifies if the operator's current authorization is Expertfor operation 0300 on product 2150-D80, and the operator does notperform operation 0300 on product 2150-D80 in the past 90 days, theoperator's current authorization is reduced one level to Intermediate.Entry 1070 specifies for an operator that has an authorization ofBeginner for operation 0300 on product 2150-D80 and has achieved in thepast three months a defect rate of less than one percent, the operator'sauthorization is adjusted to Intermediate. Of course, the entries1010-1070 shown in FIG. 10 are simple examples of suitable rules thatcould provide a desired adjustment to an existing operatorauthorization. One skilled in the art will readily appreciate that manydifferent types of rules could be formulated to increase an operator'sauthorization, decrease an operator's authorization, or revoke anoperator's authorization. The disclosure and claims herein expresslyextend to any suitable rule for increasing, decreasing, or revoking anoperator's authorization. Note the adjusting of an operator'sauthorization in the disclosure and claims herein includes increasing,decreasing or revoking the operator's authorization to perform aselected operation, or adding authorization for the operator to performone or more similar operations.

Referring to FIG. 11, a method 1100 shows steps that could be performedby the authorization adjustment mechanism 290 in FIG. 2. Note the logicfor method 1100 could be encapsulated in the similar operation models260 in FIG. 2, or could be in the authorization adjustment mechanism290, which operates on the similar operation models 260. An operator isselected (step 1110). The current authorizations for the operator aredetermined (step 1120). This may be done, for example, by reading theoperator authorization 124 shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. An operation isselected from the current authorizations (step 1130). If the similaroperation models 260 define a similar operation to the selectedoperation (step 1140=YES), method 1100 checks to see if similaroperation criteria in the similar operation models 260 are satisfied(step 1150). If so (step 1150=YES), the operator's authorizations areadjusted by adding an authorization to the similar operation (step1160). If there is no similar operation defined for the selectedoperation (step 1140=NO), or if there is a similar operation defined forthe selected operation but the criteria for the similar operation is notsatisfied (step 1150=NO), step 1160 is skipped, and the operator'sauthorizations are not adjusted. If there are more authorizations toprocess (step 1170=YES), method 1100 loops back to step 1130 to selectanother operation, and continues. When there are no more authorizationsto process for a selected operator (step 1170=NO), if there are moreoperators to process (step 1180=YES), method 1100 loops back to step1110 to select a different operator, and continues. Once allauthorizations for all operators have been processed (step 1180=NO),method 1100 is done.

The similar operation models 260 in FIG. 2 provide rules that definewhen operations can be considered similar enough to autonomically adjustoperator authorization to authorized one or more similar operations.FIGS. 12 and 13 shows suitable tables that could be included in thesimilar operations models 260.Table 1200 defines similar operationgroups, and includes columns for Similar Operation ID, Key for BaseAuthorization, Current Performance Level, # Authorizations within thisSimilar Operation Group, and Authorization Recommended for OtherActivities in this Similar Operation Group. Entry 1210 specifies if anoperator has a current authorization of Expert in two of the threeoperations in the Key for Base Authorization column, the authorizationrecommended for other activities in this similar operation group will beIntermediate. Entry 1220 specifies if an operator has a currentauthorization of Expert in one of the three operations in the Key forBase Authorization column, the authorization recommended for otheractivities in this similar operation group will be Beginner. Table 1200thus defines similar operation groups along with criteria that, whensatisfied, allows autonomically adjusting authorization for a selectedoperator to authorize the selected operator to perform similaroperations, even when the operator has never had authorization toperform those operations in the past.

Table 1300 in FIG. 13 includes logic for determining when operations aresimilar. The one entry in table 1300 specifies that when an operator hasan authorization greater than or equal to Expert for the TEST operationon the 9119-595 product, the operator may be autonomically grantedIntermediate authorization to perform operation 0050 on the sameproduct. Note that tables 1200 and 1300 show two different ways todefine the similar operations models 260 in FIG. 2. Note that similaroperation models 260 may have any suitable structure or form, includingdata and logic, that allows for both simple and complex rules to beformulated. Any and all rules that define any degree of similaritybetween operations are within the scope of the disclosure and claimsherein.

Table 1400 in FIG. 14 defines what authorization to apply when differentanalyses reach different recommended adjustments to the operatorauthorization. Table 1400 defines rules that may be used by step 370 inFIG. 3 to resolve potential conflicts between desired adjustments. Table1400 could be implemented as part of the performance overrides 270 shownin FIG. 2. Entry 1410 specifies for operation 0050 on product 9406-570,the highest operator authorization is used. Thus, if the unbiasedauthorization specifies an authorization of Expert for this operation,but the similar operations analysis specifies an authorization ofIntermediate for this operation, the operator authorization for thisoperation will be adjusted to Expert, which is the highest of the two.Entry 1420 specifies for operation 0050 on product 9117-570, the lowestoperator authorization is used. Thus, if the unbiased authorizationspecifies an authorization of Expert for this operation, but the similaroperations analysis specifies an authorization of Intermediate for thisoperation, the operator authorization for this operation will beadjusted to Intermediate, which is the lowest of the two. Entry 1430specifies for operation 0410 on all products, the authorization of theunbiased authorization will be used. Thus, if the unbiased authorizationspecifies an authorization of Intermediate for this operation, but thesimilar operations analysis specifies an authorization of Expert forthis operation, the operator authorization for this operation will beadjusted to Intermediate, which is the unbiased authorization. Entry1440 specifies for operation 0050 on product 9119-595, the authorizationproduced by the similar operation analysis will be used. Thus, if theunbiased authorization specifies an authorization of Intermediate forthis operation, but the similar operations analysis specifies anauthorization of Expert for this operation, the operator authorizationfor this operation will be adjusted to Expert, which is therecommendation of the similar operations analysis.

FIG. 15 shows a table 1500 that is one suitable implementation for thetime phased operator performance 230 shown in FIG. 2. Table 1500includes columns for Product, Operation, User ID, Start Timestamp andEnd Timestamp. We assume the manufacturing system logs the time phasedoperator performance into table 1500 as the operator works. Entry 1510shows the operator with the user ID of VEND008 (which corresponds toJane Doe—see table 244 in FIG. 6) started operation 0200 on product 520on Mar. 11, 2010 at 7:00 AM, and ended the operation the same day at7:17 AM. Entry 1520 shows the operator started operation 0300 on product550 at 7:18 AM the same day, and ended the operation at 7:40 AM. Entry1530 shows the operator started operation 0050 on product 570 at 7:41 AMthe same day, and ended the operation at 8:11 AM. Entry 1540 shows theoperator started operation 0060 on product 570 on Mar. 7, 2010 at 7:00AM, and ended the operation at 8:42 AM. The table 1500 that logs thetime phased operator performance may then be used to determine theunbiased authorization for the operator, as described in detail above.

FIG. 16 shows a table 1600 that is one suitable implementation for theoperator quality 220 shown in FIG. 2. Table 1600 includes columns forProduct, Operation, User ID, Defect Rate, and Failures. We assume themanufacturing system logs the operator quality into table 1600 as theoperator works. Entry 1610 shows the operator with the user ID ofVEND008 had a defect rate of 1.3% with a total of 7 failures foroperation 0050 on product 520. Entry 1620 shows the operator had adefect rate of 1.5% with a total of 11 failures for operation 0050 onproduct 550. Entry 1630 shows the operator had a defect rate of 1.7%with a total of 8 failures for operation 0050 on product 570. Entry 1640shows the operator had a defect rate of 3.4% with a total of 16 failuresfor operation 0060 on product 570. The table 1600 that logs the operatorquality may then be used to determine the unbiased authorization for theoperator, as described in detail above.

FIG. 17 shows a sample method 1700 that is one suitable implementationfor determining an unbiased authorization (e.g., 250 in FIG. 2) for aselected operator in accordance with method 800 in FIG. 8. First, anoperation is selected (step 1710). The operation selected in step 810 isan operation the operator has performed in the past. The activity countand period is then determined for the selected operation from theselected operator's work history (step 1720). If the selected operatorhas performed the selected operation more than 1000 times in the last 12months (step 1730=YES), the quality defect rate is determined from theselected operator's work history (step 1740). If the defect rate is lessthan one percent (step 1750=YES), the authorization for the operator toperform the selected operation is set to Expert (step 1752). If thedefect rate is not less than one percent (step 1750=NO) but is less thantwo percent (step 1760=YES), the authorization for the operator toperform the selected operation is set to Intermediate (step 1762). Ifthe defect rate is not less than two percent (step 1760=NO) but is lessthan three percent (step 1770=YES), the authorization for the operatorto perform the selected operation is set to Beginner (step 1772). If thedefect rate is three percent or more (step 1770=N0), the authorizationfor the operator to perform the selected operation is set to Trainer(step 1780). In addition, if the selected operator did not perform theselected operation more than 1000 times in the past 12 months (step1730=NO), the authorization for the operator to perform the selectedoperation is set to Trainer (step 1732). If there are more operations toevaluate (step 1790=YES), method 1700 loops back to step 1710 andcontinues until there are no more operations to evaluate (step 1790=N0).Note the unbiased authorization level for the selected operator toperform a selected operation is based solely on the work history for theoperator, and does not take into account the operator's currentauthorization for that operation. In this manner, the operator's currentauthorization for the operation can be compared to the unbiasedauthorization to determine according to the rules in the performanceoverrides if an adjustment to the operator's authorization is needed.

The disclosure and claims relate to autonomically adjusting operatorauthorizations according to many factors, including the passage of time,the operator's work history that spans multiple periods of activity withone or more periods of inactivity, current performance, and similaroperations. One or more rules are defined that determine how toautonomically adjust an authorization for an operator. Note the term“autonomically adjust” in the context of the disclosure and claims meansadjustment of the operator authorization that is preferably performedreal-time based on information within the manufacturing system andwithout requiring any input from any operator or system administrator atthe time the adjustment is made. A manufacturing system thatincorporates the autonomic adjustment of operator authorizations asdisclosed herein can easily account for an operator's past work history,even when that history includes multiple activity periods, can accountfor knowledge decay with the passage of time, can account for theoperator's actual performance, and can account for similar operationsaccording to defined similar operation models.

One skilled in the art will appreciate that many variations are possiblewithin the scope of the claims. Thus, while the disclosure isparticularly shown and described above, it will be understood by thoseskilled in the art that these and other changes in form and details maybe made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of theclaims.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method executed byat least one processor for autonomically adjusting an operatorauthorization for a selected operator to perform a selected operation ina manufacturing environment, the method comprising the steps of:determining work history for the selected operator in performing theselected operation by computing an unbiased authorization for theselected operator based on performance for the selected operator inperforming the selected operation and defect percentage for the selectedoperator in performing the selected operation, wherein the work historyfor the selected operator spans multiple time periods with at least oneperiod of inactivity between the multiple time periods, where each timeperiod and each period of inactivity specifies a range of dates;determining at least one portion of the work history that is applicableto the selected operator according to at least one time threshold; andautonomically adjusting an authorization for the selected operator toperform the selected operation based on the work history of the selectedoperator that satisfies the at least one time threshold by applying aplurality of override rules that determine when adjusting the operatorauthorization for the selected operator to perform the selectedoperation is needed based on the unbiased authorization, applying theplurality of override rules to the unbiased authorization and to acurrent operator authorization to determine a final adjustment to theoperator authorization, and applying the final adjustment to theoperator authorization.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the workhistory includes performance for the selected operator in performing theselected operation and defect percentage for the selected operator inperforming the selected operation.
 3. The method of claim 1 furthercomprises the steps of: evaluating a plurality of similar operationrules to determine whether the operator authorization for the selectedoperator allows granting authorization to at least one similaroperation; and when the operator authorization for the selected operatorallows granting authorization to the at least one similar operation,adjusting the operator authorization to provide authorization for theselected operator to perform the at least one similar operation.
 4. Themethod of claim 1 further comprising the step of revoking theauthorization for the selected operator to perform the selectedoperation when the work history for the selected operator to perform theselected operation is beyond a period specified by the at least one timethreshold.
 5. The method of claim 1 further comprising the step ofpermitting the selected operator to perform the selected operation on aphysical machine.
 6. A computer-implemented method executed by at leastone processor for autonomically adjusting a first operator authorizationfor a selected operator to perform a selected operation in amanufacturing environment, the method comprising the steps of: (A)reading the first operator authorization for the selected operator; (B)computing a second operator authorization for the selected operatorbased on work history for the selected operator and a plurality of timethresholds, wherein the work history includes performance for theselected operator and defect percentage for the selected operator inperforming the selected operation, wherein the work history for theselected operator spans multiple time periods with at least one periodof inactivity between the multiple time periods, wherein only the workhistory that satisfies the plurality of time thresholds is used incomputing the second operator authorization; (C) reading a thirdoperator authorization for the selected operator that is manuallyentered by a system administrator; (D) evaluating the first, second andthird authorizations for the selected operator according to a pluralityof override rules that determine when adjusting the first operatorauthorization for the selected operator to perform the selectedoperation is needed; (E) evaluating a plurality of similar operationrules to determine whether the first, second and third operatorauthorization for the selected operator allows granting authorization toat least one similar operation; (F) when the plurality of override rulesevaluated in step (D) indicate a first adjustment to the first operatorauthorization for the selected operator to perform the selectedoperation is needed, and the plurality of similar operation rulesevaluated in step (E) indicate a second adjustment to the first operatorauthorization for the selected operator to perform the selectedoperation is needed, resolving any potential conflict between the firstand second adjustments according to at least one predetermined rule togenerate a final adjustment to the first operator authorization; (G)autonomically adjusting the first operator authorization using the finaladjustment for the selected operator to perform the selected operation;and (H) allowing the first operator to perform the selected operation ona physical machine when the adjusted first operator authorizationauthorizes the selected operator to perform the selected operation.